There are three major pacific ocean cycles at work here. The PDO (Pacific decadal Oscillation), the multi-decadal 30 year, and 60 year cycles. The year 2012 saw very weak salmon numbers in the northern Pacific, while Monterey bay had the best run since the 'late 40's.Endless salmon limits all season long. A friend has a sportfishing charter business on Prince of Wales Island, the next island above the spot where the iron sulfate was dumped. The year 2013 was a salmon desert in the Monterey Bay (I landed five for the season), while the Prince of Wales/Queen Charolette Islands had huge numbers. So did the Eureka, California area. In other words, the fish have tails, and move around as their food source population ebbs and grows.

The iron sulfate did create a planktonic bloom that enhanced forage fish production in a very limited area near the dump site. The large return of Pink Salmon to the area (pinks being the most populous species in S.E. Alaska) has to do with the two year oceanic life cycle of these fish. Depending on geographic location, the Pink Salmon population peaks in either odd or even years. One year of weak runs followed by strong runs the next. The 72 million strong Fraser river sockeye return mentioned was the result of the previous year being the weakest in recent memory. Sockeye have a different life cycle than pinks, and there was a lot of larger than normal fish in that 72 mil run. Most folks in the know attribute this to the higher than normal water temperatures in the Fraser the previous year. An extra year of feeding at sea, and you have two years worth of fish returning the same year. I've witnessed this pattern of boom/bust in salmon populations my entire life, and the author's attempt to attribute the upshift in runs to the teeny tiny plankton bloom created by the Zubrin dump is either a product of ignorance or political spin.

I have a notion that one of the messages of Genesis is that we have been handed a Garden of Eden, and that our challenge is to prevent, and reverse, its destruction by our "Knowledge". Looks like we a losing, badly.

===============================================

Wildlife Numbers Drop by Half Since 1970, Report SaysAnalysis by WWF and Others Was Based on Thousands of Species in Rivers, on Land and at SeaBy Gautam NaikUpdated Sept. 30, 2014 2:21 p.m. ET

A new, comprehensive study of the world's wildlife population has drastically reduced its 2012 estimate. Why? WSJ's Jason Bellini has #TheShortAnswer.

Earth lost half its wildlife in the past four decades, according to the most comprehensive study of animal populations to date, a far larger decline than previously reported.

The new study was conducted by scientists at the wildlife group WWF, the Zoological Society of London and other organizations. Based on an analysis of thousands of vertebrate species, it concludes that overall animal populations fell 52% between 1970 and 2010.

The decline was seen everywhere—in rivers, on land and in the seas—and is mainly the result of increased habitat destruction, commercial fishing and hunting, the report said. Climate change also is believed to be a factor, though its consequences are harder to measure.

The previous WWF report analyzing animal populations, published in 2012, suggested a decline of 28% over a similar period. The latest report uses 15% more data than the previous one, is more representative of tropical species and applies an improved methodology.

"We were surprised by the extent of the decline. It means we are not effectively reducing biodiversity loss," said Robin Freeman, a researcher at the Zoological Society of London, which compiled the population database on which the study was based.

The fastest declines were seen in rivers and other freshwaters systems, where populations fell 76% since 1970. By comparison, terrestrial and marine populations each fell 39%. While biodiversity continues to decline in both temperate and tropical parts of the world, the downward trend is greater in the tropics.

The findings are calculated using the WWF's Living Planet Index, a measure of biodiversity based on trends in 10,000 populations of about 3,000 animal species.

The WWF has been compiling its index since 1998. It tracks animal populations just as a stock-market index tracks the value of a group of stocks. In some cases—such as the tiger population—it is possible to get a fairly accurate fix on animal numbers. For other species, such as birds, the scientists rely on proxies, such as the number of nests or breeding pairs.

A pink river dolphin, also called an Amazon river dolphin, in Brazil. Barcroft Media/Getty Images

The approach has limitations. For example, an analysis of 3,000 species may provide only a rough approximation of population levels for the thousands of species that inhabit Earth and weren't included in the number crunching. "It leaves room for improvement," said Dr. Freeman, adding that the index would include more species in the future to increase its power.

Another pitfall is bias. Researchers may have included more data from declining species simply because the figures are easier to obtain. That problem may have been averted in this study. Of the 3,000 species included, several had stable populations. Of the remainder, half showed declines and half showed increases—but the declines were vastly greater than the increases.

The WWF report also tries to measure the state of humanity's ability to live in a sustainable way. With the planet's population expected to swell by 2.4 billion people by 2050, the challenge of providing enough food, water and energy will be difficult.

The report calculates a global "ecological footprint," which measures the area required to supply the ecological goods and services humans use. It concludes that humanity currently needs the regenerative capacity of 1.5 Earths to supply these goods and services each year.

An elephant in the Central African Republic Getty Images

"This 'overshoot' is possible because—for now—we can cut trees faster than they mature, harvest more fish than the oceans can replenish, or emit more carbon into the atmosphere than the forests and oceans can absorb," the report said. Since the 1990s, humans have reached that overshoot by the ninth month of each year, it adds.

"It's a very loud wake-up call," said Carter Roberts, chief executive officer of WWF U.S., in an interview. "As we lose natural capital, people lose the ability to feed themselves and to provide for their families—it increases instability exponentially. When that happens, it ceases to be a local problem and becomes a global one."